|
Poster:
|
tambora |
Date:
|
July 13, 2004 03:58:14pm |
|
Forum:
|
prelinger
|
Subject:
|
Re: SUMMING UP finis |
Well, Cashel, or should I say "Jack2," you're very good at opening up cans of worms just for the glee of throwing them in people's food. This is not necessarily a character flaw; it just gets old after awhile.
The fact is, in our ultra-sensitive world where saying one word against a formerly-persecuted minority is grounds for lynching, you have to choose your words more carefully to avoid a war. I, too, am tired of activist filmmaking using the same old propaganda techniques. However, unless you strictly stick to criticizing ONLY the filmmaking, people will get mad at you, as shown.
Ironically enough, some of the most cherished and debated films in the Archive, Putnam included, are examples of activist filmmaking, so I guess we owe it to ourselves to put up with it for now, just so that we can appreciate it when it's appropriately aged.
Spuzz wasn't attacking you when he said "Oh dear." He just didn't want to get involved or have to put up with another Cashel-instigated fight over George Putnam.
You defend George Putnam like I defend Stanley Kubrick. Neither of us think we're right--it's past that--we both KNOW we're right, or, rather, we've convinced ourselves that we are. So when anyone with another valid opinion happens to disagree or seemingly desecrate that which we hold so dearly, we become upset. This is understandable.
If you are upset with their pro-gay film that makes use of George Putnam, just make your own anti-gay film that makes use of the cartoon that was referenced in the previous thread. Your parody would be protected by copyright law, and it would surely make them squirm, or at least want to. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout's fair play.
Now to address AKB and the others that were recently bashing Cashel. As I've pointed out, Cashel is rarely justified and only sometimes right, and he often goes about things the wrong way. But that doesn't mean that you are entirely right, either.
It is unfair to call someone who is against homosexuality a bigot. They are not. They merely hold a different opinion than you do, and until it is undeniably proven scientifically that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, it is not bigoted to believe that it is wrong, that it is harmful to society, or that its influence is harmful to children.
To employ a classic analogy, skin color is not a choice, and therefore one is racist and bigoted to judge someone based on it; murder is a choice, and therefore it is not bigoted to judge someone for it. Homosexuality, while perhaps a harmless private lifestyle, has not been studied long enough to determine whether it is a choice or not and whether it is detrimental to society or not. Therefore, until that is determined, either view of it should be accepted equally, no matter how repugnant the other side may seem to you.
Anyway, that's about all I have to say. From now on, if the film isn't in the Archive, let's just forget about it and save our breath. And unless you're debating the merits of the filmmaking exclusively, it's just not worth it.
In the future, let's try not to deliberately step on so many toes, okay? And, while we're at it, let's all invest in some steel-toed shoes, too.
TVNews
OpenLibrary